Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38737524›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024

Considerations for conducting a scoping review in pharmacy education.

Cherie Lucas, Shane P Desselle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cherie LucasSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Shane P DesselleDept. of Clinical and Admn Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Touro University California, Vallejo, CA 94592, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interrogating the literature is among the first steps a researcher undertakes when actuating a research project or also when any scholar might seek to know what has been done in an area, best practices for conducting a certain activity, or simply to seek answers for a question ranging from one's own personal curiosity to those that might affect departmental or institutional guidance. Decisions on the type of review process to undertake is one that is not taken lightly. This methods commentary outlines the reasons for conducting a scoping review versus a systematic review for topics related to pharmacy education. Considerations for conducting the scoping review are outlined including considerations for writing a protocol prior to conducting a scoping review, to potential platforms to use for transparency of sharing data, processes related to guidelines for data extraction and types of search strategies utilized.

Indexed as

Literature reviewMethods paperScoping review

Identifiers

PMID38737524
PMCPMC11088334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.